Esperanto

Of course a mantis (esperantistas) that never Prays has read the Bible or algun another religious or learned book that we must be Dissendolisto "prays incessantly" but hidden praying privily. We do not have to boast to us or to be conceited by our orations. Por supuesto los mantis (esperantistas) que Oran nunca han leído la Biblia o algun otro libro religioso o aprendido que debemos Dissendolisto "orar sin cesar" sino escondidos orando en secreto.einen Fruchtsaft. No debemos jactarnos o presumir por nuestras oraciones.. But if we can, like believers go to the throne of GOD in oration like believers. We did not need to hope or to tartar of being elcuentes with our words. The Gentleman wants that we speak with HIM. He would prefer that gritaramos or to share all our thoughts instead of ignoring it to HIM HE knows the plans that Bunto for everybody has for Europe "a future and a hope. Pero si podemos como creyentes ir al trono de DIOS en oración como creyentes. No necesitamos esperar o tartar de ser elcuentes con nuestras palabras. EL Señor quiere que hablemos con ÉL. El preferiría que gritaramos o compartir todos nuestros pensamientos en lugar de ignorarlo a ÉL. ÉL conoce los planes que tiene para tí para europa bunto para todo el mundo "un futuro y una esperanza". Espero que ésta nueva página pueda conectarlos con su nota personal. Esto no es algo que usen para que puedan medirlo. ” I hope that this one new page can connect them with its personal note. This is not something that uses so that they can measure it. This is not for a personal measurement or a list to check or tape to measure like Christians. Esto no es para una medida personal o una lista para checar o cinta de medir como cristianos. <>...Algo que sea un recordatorio para que ustedes puedan orar en cualquier momento y lugar. Prendiendo la luz de la esperanza.Something that is a reminder so that everybody can pray at any time and place. Perhaps WITH THE ROAD MAP <

Perhaps Josef Louis Villafan is a new and improved version of those programs that generate syntactically correct text, without regard for meaning?

or this way of communicating reminds me of cantinflas or salvatore (from the novel of umberto eco "the name of the rose".

que creen?

"communicating"? Are you sure?

The form of writing reminds me of the kind of text one might read where there are no essential meta-structures of any kind and the a priori definition of the meaning of the text remains unchanged with respect to the definiend. The other definiend (at every level of understanding) cannot be abstracted from the general structure without losing the meaning of the content of the meaning of the content of the meaning. Thus, without losing content, the definition of the definiend reamins unchanged with respect to this text, a priori defined as undefined with respect to the a priori meaning. In the meme context, this can be appreciated as another navel in the great thingamajig -- in essence we cannot appreciate this without losing structure. Poetry, on the other hand, is like writing words on paper, and sometimes they rhyme, too. At other times, they don't. People may be happy but they may also be sad. The context of this is that without purpose the fun goes out of the fun, and the context goes out through the navel.

Ah, yes, Postmodernism at its finest.

[or is that an oxymoron?]

Naturally, we should not expect postmodernism to have the exacting impact of a giant comet, whose sole purpose is to drive evolution on a path it might have been intended to steer into, had determinism had any real grasp on what we jokingly call reality. Instead, the constant dripping of water on a stone (or is it the stone that drips on the water?) is a more fitting and clear image of the mind for this particular context. While one might argue that the specific geometry of space and time limits our perception in cases of duress, it is more often the case that our perception limits our perception. How this comes to be is one of life's lesser mysteries. In fact, for the time being, life has been put on hold in order to satisfactorily answer this, arguable very postmodern, cucumber.

Stand by while life progresses unnoticed.

hehe

2007”N@‘æ92‰ñ ¢ŠEƒGƒXƒyƒ‰ƒ“ƒg‘å‰ï@‰¡•lŽsµ’v‚Ö

¡2007”N‘æ92‰ñ¢ŠEƒGƒXƒyƒ‰ƒ“ƒg‘å‰ï‚ð‰¡•lŽs‚ɏµ’v‚·‚邽‚ß‚Ì•K—v•¶‘ˆêŽ®‚ªC¢ŠEƒGƒXƒyƒ‰ƒ“ƒg‹¦‰ï–ðˆõ‚É“Í‚«‚Ü‚µ‚½B‚±‚ê‚Å“ú–{‚ª³Ž®‚É–¼æ‚è‚ð‹“‚°‚½‚±‚Æ‚É‚È‚è‚Ü‚·BŒˆ’è‚Í2004”N8ŒŽ‚ɃyƒLƒ“‚Å‚¨‚±‚È‚í‚ê‚鐢ŠE‘å‰ï‚ɂāBƒ‹[ƒ}ƒjƒA‚͏µ’v‚ð’f”O‚µ‚½–Í—l‚Å‚·Bƒuƒ‹ƒKƒŠƒA‚à—§‚‚Ƃ¢‚¤‚¤‚킳‚ª‚ ‚è‚Ü‚·‚ªC‚Ü‚¾³Ž®‚ɏµ’v‚µ‚½‚©‚Ç‚¤‚©•ª‚©‚è‚Ü‚¹‚ñB

¡¢ŠEƒGƒXƒyƒ‰ƒ“ƒg‘å‰ï‚Í–ˆ”Nˆê“x¢ŠE‚Ì‚Ç‚±‚©‚Å‚¨‚±‚È‚í‚ê‚éƒGƒXƒyƒ‰ƒ“ƒg‚́u‚¨Õ‚èv‚Å‚·Bð”N‚̓uƒ‰ƒWƒ‹‚̃tƒHƒ‹ƒgƒŒƒUC¡”N‚̓XƒEƒF[ƒfƒ“‚̃CƒF[ƒeƒ{ƒŠC2004”N‚Í’†‘‚̃yƒLƒ“C2005”N‚̓ŠƒgƒAƒjƒA‚̃rƒŠƒjƒ…ƒX‚ŁB2006”N‚Í‚½‚Ô‚ñƒƒVƒA‚ŁC‚Ü‚½‚̓XƒyƒCƒ“‚ŁB–ˆ”N¢ŠE’†‚©‚çç”•Sl`”çl‚̃GƒXƒyƒ‰ƒ“ƒeƒBƒXƒg‚ªW‚¢‚Ü‚·B

¡ƒGƒXƒyƒ‰ƒ“ƒg‚Ɋ֐S‚Ì‚ ‚é‚Ý‚È‚³‚ñBŠw‚ÑŽn‚ß‚é‚Ȃ獡‚ªƒ`ƒƒƒ“ƒXB2007”N‚̐¢ŠEƒGƒXƒyƒ‰ƒ“ƒg‘å‰ï‚ð‚ß‚´‚µ‚āC¡‚·‚®ƒGƒXƒyƒ‰ƒ“ƒg‰‹‰’ʐMuÀ‚ɐ\‚µž‚ށC‚Æ‚¢‚¤‚̂́C‚·‚΂炵‚¢l‚¦‚Å‚·B5”NŒã‚ɂ́C‚ ‚È‚½‚Í‚à‚¤CƒGƒXƒyƒ‰ƒ“ƒg‚Ì’´’BlBiî•ñF03/7/12j

Yes, but how do you reconcile the existence of a soul, not to mention a mind, in that worldview? A fully deterministic/materialistic model still requires a modicum of explanation of the emergent phenomena we see all around us every day.

The cosmos now seems more like a developing organism than an eternal machine. All of nature seems to be volutionary. Consciousness as a property of matter, Consciousness as a property of protoplasm, yinplasma. Consciousness as learning, Consciousness as a metaphysical imposition, the helpless spectator theory, Emergent evolution, behaviorism, Consciousness as the reticular activating system. To understand a state of consciousness, you must starts with some theoretical postulates. The first postulate is the existence of a basic "attention/awareness." A corollary is the existence of "self awareness," that is the awareness of being aware. Then there are "structures" which are relatively permanent functions of the mind that act on information to transform it in various ways. Finally there is the postulate that attention/awareness acts as "psychological energy" that activates the structures. The arrow of awareness points through the lens of mind, which has its own focussing and distorting properties and is normally perceived as transparent-- that is, not perceived at all. It is possible to look at the lens of mind-- for it to be an object of awareness or thought-- provided we understand that what we think we are seeing as the lens is itself a product of the lens, a mere image. In other words, the lens can be known only through inference from its distorting effects upon experience. It is better regarded as a theoretical construct rather than a literal object of perception. (I am speaking not of the brain, which is a physical object, but of the mind, which is not). An analogy might be the black hole which acts as a gravitational lens. It cannot itself be seen, but produces visible effects on the background of more distant objects whose images are distorted or multiply refracted around it.

Yes, this is what I mean by context coming out through the navel. The mystery of our existence is that things act as if they were consistent -- modulo our misperceptions/misconceptions about them. How can we explain that we can explain? How can we understand that we can understand? How can we go beyond language without language? The limits of perception are invisible, yet ever-present. But without them there would be no perception, except for maybe a single, static understanding of all things and their interrelationships (including the relationships between the 'external' world, the 'internal' understanding of it, and their interrelationships, and so on).

It is valuable at this point to make the distinction between the question 'why' and the question 'what for'. All human beings are trapped in their own languages with the world “WHY” is an indefinite and also infinity term, it always will follow another answers in any language including the relationships between the 'external' world, the 'internal' understanding of it, and their interrelationships, and so on . . . One of the features of a well-formed outcome is that it includes consideration of the result the user wants it to produce for them; that is the purpose, the broader perspective, the overview of the desired state, these 'what is this for - what does it do for you' aspect. To ask 'why' someone wants something will produce a completely different class of answer. It invites justification. The answer often starts with 'because . . . ' and continues on from there. The question 'why' directs the listener's attention backwards in time, to what has already taken place. In the context of a desired result in the future, backward directed attention has limited use. What is wanted is forward directed attention toward the desired future; attention placed on how the user can influence that future toward meeting their own specification. To find the intended purpose of a course of action, one needs to ask what the action is for. These answers are more likely to elicit responses beginning with phrases like 'to make . . . ' or 'to provide . . . ' or 'to do . . . '. They contain an element of action, of purpose, of forward momentum and direction. Intent is presupposed, and information is brought into the system to facilitate action. So what can one do with this process? When would it be useful to elicit a well-formed outcome, and what material makes suitable subject matter? The answers to these questions are largely a matter of personal choice. There is much to gain from using this process on unclear material, 'what would happen if . . . ' situations and those absolute disasters we want to avoid at all costs. With the 'avoid at all costs' class, the first thing to ask is what we would rather have in place of the disaster, and then go on to refine it into something highly desirable. When defining evidence of the desired outcome, it needs to be something that another person could see, hear or feel if it were pointed out to them.

you are all so impressive...i feel like ...like...like?

maybe you can help me with your extensive vocabulary.

It all becomes a question of looking either backward or forward along an imaginary time axis. Once one realizes that our perception is hard-coded in order to establish cause-effect relations between cause A and effect B, where A precedes B in time, the process of reschooling can begin. David Hume was one of the first modern philosophers to question the cause-effect interpretation of things, saying in essence that all we observe are things happening close in time to one another. We can never observe an actual cause-effect pair, says Hume. This all is evident from the oft quoted "Correlation does not imply causation" saying, which states that the mere presense of two events A and B certainly does not imply any causal relationship between A and B (and most certainly not in any arbritary direction!). There are several other thinkable possibilities, including the ones where A and B are totally unrelated and their co-occurance has been governed by chance so far, or where A and B are both caused by a third event C which may or may not be very evident. Then one can turn one's attention to the question of cause always preceding effect in time. This seems to be true on a macroscopic scale, but definitely fails to hold on the quantum scale. Question is: does cause always precede effect on the macroscopic scale, or do we simple miss all those causes preceded by their effects, because our perception limits us in ways that we are unaware of?

Even at the quantum level, I see no reason to assume that causation can go in direction in time we term "backwards". It's merely that there are many third causes, C (in your terms) of which we are unaware.

Of course if we live in a deterministic universe (which is possible, I think, despite Heisenberg) then everything is ultimately governed by one very big C, which we may term "God", the Laws of Nature, or whatever.

Jose what does mean "All human beings ..." ?

Didnt u refuse solipsism too early from your pjilosophy? :-)

Re quantum physics, the impression I get from the theories is that forward and reverse time gain a more prominent kind of reciprocal symmetry than at the macroscopic level. As an example, the electron can be seen as moving in one direction, time-wise, while its anti-particle (the positron) moves in the other.

Re solipsism, I think "all human beings" can be thought of as a short form of "all human beings I create in my mind". ;)

But then I couldnt study something secondary (illusion) and not spirit of reality :-)

I propose - first of all make good criteria which could refuse meaningless premises.

I'm not sure I understand you, but if what you're saying is that the definition between that which constitutes reality and that which doesn't, lacks any kind of foundation -- then I agree with you. There is no spoon, or rather, we cannot tell. On the other hand, George Berkeley would probably disagree with me.

If an object is in a strict sense a system of objects, then every property of the object must consist in the fact that its constituents have such and such qualities and stand in such and such relations or, roughly, every property of a system of objects consists of properties of, and relations between, its constituents. We have pulled perceptible qualities out of the physical environment and put them into sensations. If we now say that all there really is to sensation is a complex interaction of cerebral particles, then we have taken them out of our world picture altogether. We will have made it unintelligible how things could even appear to be coloured. Having, therefore, given the perceptible qualities of manifest objects their real locus in sensation we were confronted with the problem of choosing between dualism or identity with respect to the relation of conscious sensations to their analogues in the visual cortex, and the above argument seems to point clearly in the dualistic direction. The 'ultimate homogeneity' of perceptible qualities, which, among other things, prevented identifying the perceptible qualities of physical objects with complex properties of systems of physical particles, stands equally in the way of identifying, rather than correlating, conscious sensations with the complex neural processes with which they are obviously connected.

In short, what gets in the way of our understanding of the world, is ourselves. Which isn't very strange when you think about it.

The more profound the truth you find, the more complete your freedom will be. The deeper the truth you come to know, the more complete your liberation. To find absolute truth is to find absolute freedom. Truth, then, is not a relationship between people (ourselves) and their souls' affections. Truth is the comparison of one person's affections to the way things really are. I may tell you that the carpet in my room is blue. Assuming you know all the words in that sentence, the affection regarding my carpet would vibrate. Then since it is the Christmas season, suppose that you go out and purchase a blue bedspread for me. Once you deliver the bedspread you are probably going to be upset, because my carpet is not blue, but green. My carpet being green did not take any meaning out of my statement that the carpet was blue. However, since my statement did not correspond to the way things actually are, it was false. Truth is outside the scope of this [ ]reply-except that I hope that my statements regarding meaning and authorial intention are true. But life is a gift that is not for keeps, and ownership is only possible in a relative sense. Something is mine when it isn't yours, the meaning of 'mine' is relative. But I cannot say that it is mine in an absolute sense. I do not own this existence, and when I die, whatever I considered to be mine, turns out not to be mine after all. Identification is fine as long as we understand that its meaning is relative. It really has no absolute meaning. Like a wave cannot claim ownership over itself because it belongs to the ocean, ultimately we do not own ourselves because we belong to the universe. Consciousness as such is never born, absolute emptiness does not need to be born, does not need to be created: it simply exists as the truth behind existence. Absolute space is absolute time, eternity, time without beginning and without end. With every death, consciousness seems to disappear. It doesn't truly disappear, because absolute emptiness cannot possibly disappear. It never dies, its time is never up.

Well, no matter what the thing - or what the perception of truth - there may (or must) exist things that are more real and truths that are greater, or higher levels of reality accessible eventually to some appropriately equipped and sufficiently powerful form of intelligence, or to an investigation sufficiently determined and inspired. Put still another way, the evolution of being may be destined to continue without any known or possible limit.The implication may be that all perceived or extant things, or contemplated truths, are obscured and distorted by innumerable or infinite layers of illusion.

GENERAL-PURPOSE CONSCIOUS MIND..."If my friend told me that on the way here he was delayed because his car got a flat tire, then I would believe it because it is an ordinary claim. However, if he claimed that on his way here he was temporarily abducted by aliens in a UFO, then I would not believe his claim because it is extraordinary in nature. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

I agree with your distinction of truth being relative. However, due to the effect of the opinions connected with this agreement, the very act of agreement seems so much less strong than otherwise (because, truth being relative, what I agree suddenly becomes a mere personal opinion disconnected from all absolute truth, unless of course I am wrong in an absolute sense which in turn makes my agreement an absolute falsitude). Language and understanding has for too long been considered from an elementalistic context. "We thus see that all linguistic schemes, if analyzed far enough, would depend on a set of underfined terms. If we enquire about the 'meaning' of a word, we find that it depends on the 'meaning' of other words used in defining, and that the eventual new relations posited between them ultimately depend on the m.o [multiordial] meanings of the undefined terms, which at a given period, cannot be elucidated any further.

"Naturally, any fundamental theory of 'meaning' cannot avoid this issue, which must be crucial. Here a semantic experiment suggests itself. I have performed this experiment repeatedly on myself and others, invariably with similar results. Imagine that we are engaged in a friendly serious discussion with some one, and that we decide to enquire into the meanings of words. For this special experiment, it is not necessary to be very exacting, as this would enormously and unnecessarily complicate the experiment. It is useful to have a piece of paper and a pencil to keep a record of the progress.

"We begin by asking the 'meaning' of every word uttered, being satisfied for this purpose with the roughest definitions; then we ask the 'meaning' of the words used in the definitions, and this process is continued usually for no more than ten to fifteen minutes, until the victim begins to speak in circles — as, for instance, defining 'space' by 'length' and 'length' by 'space'. Whn this stage is reached, we have come usually to the undefined terms of a given individual. If we still press, no matter how gently, for definitions, a most interesting fact occurs. Sooner or later, signs of affective disturbances appear. Often the face reddens; there is a bodily restlessness; sweat appears—symptoms quite similar to those seen in a schoolboy who has forgotten his lesson, which he 'knows but cannot tell'. If the partner in the experiment is capable of self-observation, he invariably finds that he feels an internal affective pressure, connected, perhaps, with the rush of blood to the brain and probably best expressed in some such words as 'what he "knows" but cannot tell', or the like. Here we have reached the bottom and the foundation of all _non-elementalistic meanings_—the meanings of undefined terms, which we 'know' somehow, but cannot tell. In fact, we have reached the un-speakable level. This 'knowledge' is supplied by the lower nerve centres; it represents affective first order effects, and is interwoven and interlocked with other affective states, such as those called 'wishes', 'intentions', 'intuitions', 'evaluation', and many others. It should be noticed that these first order effects have an objective character, as they are un-speakable—are not words." -- "Science and Sanity" 3rd edition, Alfred Korzybski.

Imagery may bind to its referent in different ways. A mental image may be an immediate, environmental sensory experience; it may be a recalled memory; it may be a prediction of future events; it may refer to the world's present or past; it may be a subjunctive or counterfactual scenario. We can fork off a subjunctive scenario from a descriptive scene by thinking "What if?" and extrapolating, and we can fork off a separate subjunctive scenario from the first by thinking "What if?" again. Humans cannot continue the process indefinitely, because we run out of short-term memory to track all the reliances, but we have the native tracking ability. Note that mental imagery does not have an opaque tag selected from the finite set "subjunctive", "counterfactual", and so on. This would constitute code abuse: directly programming, as a special case, that which should result from general behaviors or emerge from a lower level of organization. An assertion within counterfactual imagery is not necessarily marked with the special tag "counterfactual"; rather, "counterfactual" may be the name we give to a set of internally consistent assertions with a common dependency on an assertion that is strongly disconfirmed. Similarly, a prediction is not necessarily an assertion tagged with the opaque marker "prediction"; a prediction is better regarded as an assertion with deductive support whose referent is a future event or other referent for which no sensory information has yet arrived; the prediction imagery then binds to sensory information when it arrives, permitting the detection of confirmation or disconfirmation. The distinction between "prediction", "counterfactual", and "subjunctive scenario" can arise out of more general behaviors for confidence, reliance, and reference.

Imagery may bind to its referent in different ways. A mental image may be an immediate, environmental sensory experience; it may be a recalled memory; it may be a prediction of future events; it may refer to the world's present or past; it may be a subjunctive or counterfactual scenario. We can fork off a subjunctive scenario from a descriptive scene by thinking "What if?" and extrapolating, and we can fork off a separate subjunctive scenario from the first by thinking "What if?" again. Humans cannot continue the process indefinitely, because we run out of short-term memory to track all the reliances, but we have the native tracking ability. Note that mental imagery does not have an opaque tag selected from the finite set "subjunctive", "counterfactual", and so on. This would constitute code abuse: directly programming, as a special case, that which should result from general behaviors or emerge from a lower level of organization. An assertion within counterfactual imagery is not necessarily marked with the special tag "counterfactual"; rather, "counterfactual" may be the name we give to a set of internally consistent assertions with a common dependency on an assertion that is strongly disconfirmed. Similarly, a prediction is not necessarily an assertion tagged with the opaque marker "prediction"; a prediction is better regarded as an assertion with deductive support whose referent is a future event or other referent for which no sensory information has yet arrived; the prediction imagery then binds to sensory information when it arrives, permitting the detection of confirmation or disconfirmation. The distinction between "prediction", "counterfactual", and "subjunctive scenario" can arise out of more general behaviors for confidence, reliance, and reference.

Uhm.

Beppi, what might confuse you in Josef's reply is that he really doesn't answer what I said. Mostly, he just says what's on his mind. Which seems to be a lot, most of the time.

Josef, I wish you would stay on track for two consecutive posts. There is something gratifying in reaching conclusions, but changing lanes all the time makes that exceedingly difficult.

The more profound the truth you find, the more complete your freedom will be. The deeper the truth you come to know, the more complete your liberation. To find absolute truth is to find absolute freedom. Consciousness as such is never born, absolute emptiness does not need to be born, does not need to be created: it simply exists as the truth behind existence. Absolute space is absolute time, eternity, time without beginning and without end. With every death, consciousness seems to disappear. It doesn't truly disappear, because absolute emptiness cannot possibly disappear. It never dies, its time is never up.But life is a gift that is not for keeps, and ownership is only possible in a relative sense. Something is mine when it isn't yours, the meaning of 'mine' is relative. But I cannot say that it is mine in an absolute sense. I do not own this existence, and when I die, whatever I considered to be mine, turns out not to be mine after all. Identification is fine as long as we understand that its meaning is relative. It really has no absolute meaning. Like a wave cannot claim ownership over itself because it belongs to the ocean, ultimately we do not own ourselves because we belong to the universe.

bump